The Gang of Five
The Land Before Time => General Land Before Time => Topic started by: Mumbling on August 03, 2010, 11:58:44 AM
-
Wait, what?!
Scientists: ëTriceratops never really existed’
Failer sopoRific adds some context up this post pretty awesomely:There has been some news of a recent paper that suggested triceratops and another species of dinosaur (without horns) should be considered the same species. But the speculation is that the horns are present for juveniles, making the poster a level 2 fail of a fail.
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/feb31cb2-a5c1-4c52-82be-bfd25b809e0a.jpg)
lol
-
Actually I heard that it was triceratops and torosaurus that are now considered the same species, and both have horns.
-
I don't know much about the scientific facts behind this, but that may be very true :)
-
Well I guess this means we'll have to change the Gang of Five to the Gang of Four.
-
The way I heard this, the Torosaurus name was going to be eliminated, with the species now considered as an elderly Triceratops.
-
Dude, Triceratops is a real species. Torosaurus just looks like a slightly larger version of Triceratops. I'm not buying this crap unless there really is proof of their nonexistence <_<.
-
As Kacie and Stitch said, the new hypothesis regarding Triceratops (proposed by Horner and Scanella) is that Torosaurus is actually an old Triceratops. It is known that the skull of Triceratops changed dramatically as it aged: yearlings had tiny, straight horns and a short, solid, backward-facing frill rimmed with small spikes (epiparietals); adolescents had larger, upward-curving frills (still spiked) and longer, backward-curving horns, and adults had forward-pointing horns, broad frills, and shorter, rounder frill adornments.
The new idea is that older Triceratops changed further, developing longer, squarish frills with large holes in them to reduce weight: these individuals are represented by the related ceratopsian known as Torosaurus, which was virtually identical in size and appearance to Triceratops, apart from the aforementioned frill and some other features of the skull. Horner and Scanella's reasoning is that Torosaurus remains are only known from the same localities as Triceratops, Torosaurus is much rarer, there are no known fossils of young Torosaurus, and adult Triceratops skulls show evidence of being ton their way to developing Torosaurus characteristics such as the frill spikes disappearing (Maybe your source had some of the details wrong, but these were probably the “horns” you were referring to, Iris).
This is a radical idea, so, not surprisingly, there have been many arguments against it. This post (http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2010/07/toroceratops.html) (whose author, I believe, is an “armchair paleontologist” like myself, but a more educated one) is a good example, and covers the subject quite thoroughly, though you have to have a certain understanding of paleontology in order to comprehend it easily. Some of the counter-arguments it presents are that Torosaurus's preferred habitat was not well suited for fossilization, so the only Torosaurus that were preserved were the few that wandered into Triceratops habitat; the reason for the apparent lack of juvenile Torosaurus fossils is simply that we haven't found any yet; and that, if so few Triceratops reached the stage of their lives in which they developed Torosaurus characteristics, why did they have that stage at all? Plus, just because two dinosaurs were similar, lived in the same place at the same time, and COULD have changed in such a way over their lives that one essentially grew up into the other, doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same species. I'm rather skeptical about it myself, but personally I think there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Even if Triceratops and Torosaurus do turn out to be the same dinosaur, threhorn fans need not despair. Triceratops was named two years before Torosaurus, so if the two genera were synonymized, the name Triceratops would take precedent, and Torosaurus would go the way of Brontosaurus. And most Triceratops would still look like Triceratops; if Horner and Scanella's hypothesis proves correct, it's only the oldest Triceratops that would look any different, and even for them the change would mostly entail just a longer, more rectangular frill with faintly visible “windows” covered by skin. (Also, there were two species of Triceratops: T. horridus and T. prorsus; for all we know, perhaps only one received a Torosaurus face-lift in its senior years.)
Furthermore, while this may not necessarily induce cheeriness in LBT fans, it would hardly matter to the series' scientific credibility if Torosaurus (which hasn't even appeared in LBT) ends up being sunk into Cera's species. Frankly, if this constitutes a scientific fail for LBT, then it's only the latest of many (several of which are excusable due to the fact that LBT was produced long before they were made). If you were to remake LBT accurately, Ducky's species wouldn't be any more of a swimmer than any other dinosaur, and her parents would probably spend most of their time on four legs; Petrie would eat fish (or at least not plants), be unable to grasp with his feet, and would also be primarily a quadruped; all of the main dinosaurs would be different in the number of claws and toes they had on their feet (Ducky's hands would resemble thumbless mittens with an opposable pinky); Spike would have a much narrower body and a longer neck with an armored throat; and Cera would have three horns, just to name a few. (Oh, heck; I should have just directed you all to the “Realistic Gang” picture I made for pokeplayer984's video. :rolleyes)
So, to recap, Triceratops STILL exists, and even if it didn't look exactly as most of us imagine it did when it reached nursing home age, it won't make an earth-shatteringly huge difference in our perception of it. Its greatest ramification for LBT is that Cera will get to look forward to having an even more intimidating frill when she gets older. Anyway, I hope that clears things up. ;)
-
Thought you guys could use some visual references for what Triceratops and Torosaurus looked like compared to each other ;) (Sorry about the large size of the second image).
Note that the colors are speculative.
(http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/jpegs/256col/Prorsus%20and%20Horridus.jpg)
Triceratops prorsus (left) and Triceratops horridus (right)
(http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/jpegs/256col/10tyr.jpg)
Torosaurus latus (with Tyrannosaurus rex)
Artwork © Luis V. Rey (http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/).
-
Well I guess this means we'll have to change the Gang of Five to the Gang of Four.
Nonsense. What then if science ever came up with such ridiculous claims as dinosaurs being unable to talk human language? :lol
Would we then have to abandon all interest in the land before time for lack of scientific integrity? :p
I wonder if there is any other known case anywhere in nature where bones are supposed to grow (especially at a post adult stage) to the point that windows will open up in them. There are plenty cases of such openings in bones closing up (especially at young ages) but I haven't heard of any case where it works the other way round. Does anyone know such an example?
If the theory were to be true one would expect that (given the sheer size of the frill windows) one would find skulls with various stages of development of said frills.
-
The new idea is that older Triceratops changed further, developing longer, squarish frills with large holes in them to reduce weight: these individuals are represented by the related ceratopsian known as Torosaurus, which was virtually identical in size and appearance to Triceratops, apart from the aforementioned frill and some other features of the skull. Horner and Scanella's reasoning is that Torosaurus remains are only known from the same localities as Triceratops, Torosaurus is much rarer, there are no known fossils of young Torosaurus, and adult Triceratops skulls show evidence of being ton their way to developing Torosaurus characteristics such as the frill spikes disappearing (Maybe your source had some of the details wrong, but these were probably the “horns” you were referring to, Iris).
I just copied everything in that first post directly from Failblog, so it's probably very inaccurate ;)
-
Obviously the person who originally posted it did not read or research the study thoroughly, did not understand its proposed ramifications, and/or enormously misinterpreted it. :rolleyes That, or they had a very inaccurate source themselves. Either way, it's a failblog fail. :p
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html)
I'm not gonna spoil it here.
-
I think this was already discussed in another topic. Sorry bro.
also, THEY DID TOO EXIST!!! BAAAHH
-
Merged the two topics :)
-
Scientists: Triceratops May Not Have Existed
Oyy…That's one of those headlines that make scientists facepalm. :slap
Honestly, it's extremely misleading, and not even accurate (I'll bet the failblog poster took one look at that title and based his/her post entirely off of what it said. :rolleyes) Both dinosaurs still existed, they were just members of the same species at different growth stages, meaning that one of their scientific names is no longer valid. And it's not Triceratops's, it's Torosaurus. The article would have been more accurately titled “Scientists: Torosaurus May Not Have Existed”.
This “discovery” (which is really more of a proposition) doesn't mean that we need to remove all Triceratops exhibits from museums; we just need to relabel the Torosaurus exhibits.
And all of that is assuming that this new hypothesis is correct, which it may not be (although time may tell).
It's unbelievable how clueless reporters can sometimes be. :rolleyes:
EDIT: If you need any more proof, take a look at this (http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2010/08/triceratops-exists-learn-to-read.html). I found it while I was browsing my favorite science blogs this morning.
-
Some guys made a comic that makes fun of this whole thing. And pay close attention to how they're animated...
http://roosterteeth.com/comics/strip.php?id=1699 (http://roosterteeth.com/comics/strip.php?id=1699)
-
All i can do is simply shake my head.. :neutral
I should also mention that DinoGoss is not responsible for any head-desk collision injuries caused by reading the comments in these articles. You've been warned.
:crazy :spit :lol
-
Are there any skulls displaying various states of development of the frill windows? Does anyone know of another case in nature where solid bones expand to the point of forming windows?
-
I'm gonna go ahead and call this a load of bullcrap.
-
Man if Triceratops never actually existed, then that would mess up so many things besides LBT, like Power Rangers, Dino Riders, Jurassic Park, etc...
I don't get why people don't research these things a bit more. Clearly Triceratops is still a species of dinosaur that did exist, and unless somebody gives me hard proof from a scientific or government source, I won't buy it either.
-
What bugs me the most is that so many people* who read this incredibly misleading headline immediately proceed to rant about scientists ruining their memories of their favorite dinosaur and/or their theories being garbage, when it’s the JOURNALISTS who are misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying. :mad
Furthermore, it’s annoying that the public seems to have automatically assumed that, with the release of this scientific statement, Torosaurus has been definitively rendered obsolete. At this point, IT’S JUST A HYPOTHESIS. There are plenty of ways that it could turn out to not be true. Someone could find a fossil of a young Torosaurus, or it could be discovered that some “Triceratops” skulls belonged to older animals than some “Torosaurus” skulls. Alternatively, new evidence could arise that more or less proves that Torosaurus is the same as Triceratops, but for now, the whole idea is mainly just a possibility that has been raised.
*Not GOF members, I mean people in general.
Some guys made a comic that makes fun of this whole thing. And pay close attention to how they're animated...
That Torosaurus looks a lot like Cera…
I should also mention that DinoGoss is not responsible for any head-desk collision injuries caused by reading the comments in these articles. You've been warned.
:crazy :spit :lol
See? What'd I tell ya about this being the kind of thing that provokes self-inflicted blows to the heads of scientists? :p
Are there any skulls displaying various states of development of the frill windows? Does anyone know of another case in nature where solid bones expand to the point of forming windows?
To my knowledge, there are no known Triceratops skulls that represent an intermediate growth stage between a short, solid, familiar Triceratops frill and the long Torosaurus frill with large holes. Triceratops actually did have windows in the bones of its frill (see the drawing in the upper right-hand corner of the first picture on this page (http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2009/07/horns-spikes-part-4-frill.html)), but as I understand it, the holes did not go all the way through the frill (Furthermore, they don't look to be in the right place to have later developed into the large windows of Torosaurus, though I could be wrong). Apparently part of the reasoning for the hypothesis is that a survey of Triceratops skulls showed that the bone in the area of the frill that corresponded to the location of Torosaurus's windows showed signs of thinning, which the authors presumed led to the formation of windows. Here's another page (http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2009/10/toro-toro-toro.html) on the subject.
-
In my opinion, it's fairly safe to avoid comment on what the journalists report until the full scientific value of the release is appreciated.
Scientists aren't saying that triceratops didn't exist (from my understanding which could be flawed) but rather that it should be designated as an entirely different species thanks to certain biological features.
Disregard this as scientological or even journalistical reatoric until things settle down and an agreement is reached within the science commmunity.